Crackpot opines on Obama’s victory

Karl Rove seeks to deflect attention from his failure this fall:

Mitt Romney lost the election because President Barack Obama engaged in voter suppression, according to Republican political strategist Karl Rove.

“He succeeded by suppressing the vote,” Rove said in an interview on Fox News with anchor Megyn Kelly on Thursday afternoon, “by saying to people, ‘You may not like who I am and I know you can’t bring yourself to vote for me, but I’m going to paint this other guy as simply a rich guy who only cares about himself.'”

Rove didn’t actually give any examples of ways in which Obama made it harder for people to exercise their constitutional right at the polls—things like voter ID laws, which have been pushed by GOP legislatures around the country. In fact, Obama specifically said in his victory speech that it was unfair that people had to wait in line for hours to vote, which occurred in part because Republicans reduced the time period for early voting.

Rove did say that Obama had aired attack ads and painted Romney as out-of-touch with the concerns of ordinary voters, but these are fairly common tactics in politics, and Rove is certainly no stranger to them.

“Fifty-three percent in the exit polls said on Election Day that Mitt Romney’s policies would only help the rich. And they voted for Obama by a 9 to 1 margin,” added Rove. “Of the 21 percent of the electorate who said that the most important characteristic in a president was that he cares about people like me, they voted for President Obama by almost a 9 to 1 margin. They effectively denigrated Mitt Romney’s character, business acumen, business experience and made him unworthy.”

Kelly then pointed out that whoever runs in 2016 on the Democratic ticket is not likely to go any easier on Republicans. Rove replied that the GOP needed to be quicker to responding to attacks, saying the Romney campaign did not do so effectively enough.

In other words, the Obama Campaign suppressed the vote by successfully identifying the vulture capitalist Mitt Romney as a vulture capitalist!

Rove on the hot seat

Karl Rove’s American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS reportedly collected and spent between $300M-$400M this election cycle. The result:

  • Barack Obama retained the presidency, obliterating Mitt Romney in the so-called battleground states.
  • The Democratic Party gained a seat in the Senate.
  • The Democratic Party gained three seats in the House (this could change).

How might Rove spin this political-financial debacle? I cannot say, but he will make the effort to Crossroads contributors today, according to Politico. The big donors are pissed, according to a Huffington Post report, at their money being ill spent.

I would not complain at all if the GOP were to have A Night of the Long Knives. I find it difficult to imagine that a purge would dramatically alter the political situation in the United States. Besides, the blood-letting might produce more than a few amusing auto-satirical incidents!

The Nobel Laureate prevails over the Great Commoner

The Laureate can complete what he started — destroying social security, solidifying the expansion of the security-surveillance apparatus, rooting out whistleblowers, nullifying the Bill of Rights, etc.

For whom shall I vote?

The Great Commoner? Nah. The Nobel Laureate? Hardly.

I suspect I’ll vote for Dr. Jill Stein, Green Party candidate. I’ll do so because her positions on the issues of the day exemplify the best which our political system can offer. Her party duopoly opponents, on the other hand, are just tools and sociopaths, and their politics reflect these qualities.

The Polls open at 7:00 am.

Recommended: Massive Surge of Republican Money in Last Ditch Effort to Sink Obama

Thomas Ferguson and his collaborators have warned us about an endgame surge by the Romney campaign, a possible leap in his popularity that might eventually bury the Obama presidency. In this respect the Romney campaign may mimic the Bush campaign of 2000. Both have been fueled by massive spending and guided by lying. These, to be sure, are core competencies of the Republican Party. It is because of this late cycle spending that G.W. Bush leapt over Gore in the last days of the electoral season, although his election victory was helped by a corrupted electoral mechanism and a most dubious Supreme Court decision. Additional political disasters followed the constitutional coup d’état of December, 2000.

This is the post-Citizen’s United age in American politics, and money collection and spending along with elite ‘generosity and civic mindedness’ are the true stories of the current electoral season. This fact does not distinguish the 2012 elections from its recent predecessors. The defining mark this year issues from the quantities of money spent during the campaign. The Romney campaign, according to Ferguson, et. al., lately seems to be spending large sums of this money in the battleground states to win a victory next week. This effort favors Romney, of course.

A Romney victory fueled by big donor cash would certainly prompt outrage by Democratic Party partisans, although their rage would obscure the massive amounts of money raised and spent by the 2012 and 2008 Obama campaigns. The Democratic Party lacks clean hands in this matter. It, like the Republican Party, serves as a tool of Wall Street, the security-surveillance apparatus and, in a word, the empire. Thus the cries of the partisans ought to be considered mere hypocrisy rendered into obscure sounds, wholly without intrinsic importance. The somewhat obscure significance of this kind and degree of campaign spending lies elsewhere. Ferguson and company rightly locate and identify the effect produced by this money:

Big Money’s most significant impact on politics is certainly not to deliver elections to the highest bidders. Instead it is to cement parties, candidates, and campaigns into the narrow range of issues that are acceptable to big donors. The basis of the “Golden Rule” in politics derives from the simple fact that running for major office in the U.S. is fabulously expensive. In the absence of large scale social movements, only political positions that can be financed can be presented to voters. On issues on which all major investors agree (think of the now famous 1 percent), no party competition at all takes place, even if everyone knows that heavy majorities of voters want something else.

The quoted passage neatly expresses the gist of Sheldon Wolin’s inverted totalitarian thesis, namely, “Antidemocracy, executive predominance, and elite rule are basic elements of inverted totalitarianism” (2008, 239). Or, to make the point in different terms, those who have the gold make the rules, as Ferguson suggested in his classic book. The United States remains a democracy, albeit a highly qualified democracy. Elections occur, and candidates circulate in and out of office. But the demos at large cannot control or even hold its governors accountable for what they do or fail to do. Fractions of the demos that sit beyond the pale cannot expect to win the next election, as electoral losers can expect in a functioning representative democracy. They will remain a nullity. As a consequence, American citizens are principals without agents. The principals that count in American politics are the gold holders. The participation of the “lesser people” (Alan Simpson) in the creation of collective political power mimics that of a compliant and nearly mute Greek chorus. They may select only from all but indistinguishable options. The demos at large can therefore only replace one faceless face (or set of faceless faces) with another without, however, altering economic and security policy in a significant way. These policy choices belong to the gold bearing elite and oligarchs. The democratic mechanism in the United States thus makes adverse selection an unavoidable fate for most voters. Only massive and mutually supportive social movements have the potential power needed to break the cash-government connection. As Wolin once put the matter: In the United States…it is the streets where democracy is most alive…”, a “fugitive democracy” much like the early demos (2008, 227), but a democracy nevertheless.

Indeed.

Related articles

Quote of the day

In what I could have labeled as today’s splendid yet understated observation, Peter Baker of the New York Times pointed out that:

In foreign policy, the relationship between what presidential candidates say on the campaign trail and what they do once elected can be tenuous.

We also should include what the candidates say about their domestic, fiscal, budgetary and other policies. Generally considered, political candidates are untrustworthy individuals. They are neither truthful nor honorable. They present themselves to the demos but typically act as agents of special and powerful interests. Supporting them requires a strong capacity for managing cognitive dissonance and a stubborn insensitivity to the presence and consequences of the Dunning-Kruger Effect and Status Quo Bias. Americans believe themselves to be more competent than they actually are when making political judgments. If they actually were competent political beings and if they were as free as they believe themselves to be, would they United States have the political system it has? Would it be an instance of an inverted totalitarian regime?

Mitt Romney picks Paul Ryan to be his running mate

Is it shocking that Romney picked a Koch Kreature such as Rep. Paul Ryan for this job? No!